Because if they assume the creator, then they could stop halfway through one of the biggest breakthroughs in history that could end world hunger or save the entire race and just chalk it down to...Oh, it's because G_d did it.

It doesn't say you have to disavow G_d to do science, just that the stance science has to take in order to continue and provide any result is that a creator did not just *poof* everything into existence. Even then, they assume the big bang happened. They, however, never say G_d didn't shape anything, they just offer the idea of how it may function in this realm. If you believe in a creator, then you have to believe that he made science as well, otherwise you are saying you know better than he what is good and bad that he made!

I believe in G_d, I also understand and believe in science. Next time you use your laptop, drive your car, eat any food other than what you've grown (even then you probably cooked on a stove or used a knife), realize that you are using science from the past. Your stove and house where not just *poofed* into existence.

Science is a tool. If we use it responsibly and spiritually, then it's positive. If we use it negatively, then it hurts us back. It has no will of its own.

BREAKING: You should learn to understand an article or position posited before assuming you know the definition and what it's intent is.

Imagine your family tree. You sprang from fewer and fewer individuals as you move back along your line. It's because humans don't tend to have a 1:1 ratio of children to parents. Now imagine that every few generations one of the individuals on your tree had a different eye color due to chance. If they lived, they might pass that on to the children they have. Now imagine your family tree is 1000000 years old.

Evolution: instead of people, it's organisms. instead of eye color, it's a mutation that may or may not help the animal survive. mutations on top of mutations on top of mutations on top of mutations... all the way back to that wet rock, or as is more believable, the DNA components that where floating in the ocean and, after X amount of time, by chance, combined to form a full strand, which then, by chance, formed into a single cell, which then, by chance, sprouted a hole (beginning of a mouth) in it's cell lining to ingest other organisms instead of gaining nutrients through osmosis, which then, by chance, developed a tooth or proboscus to kill the squiggling prey more quickly, which then, by chance, had already developed a structure within itself to break down the proteins from these other organisms into the basic nutrients to feed itself (beginning of stomach), which then, by chance, developed an optical element in order to differentiate between light and dark (like some plant's can do, which is the start of an eye), which then, by chance, grew a fin and a tail and a bigger mouth and a bigger stomach after having already begun to multiply into large multicellular organisms....

also the above are not insults, even if they seem that way. I want to help you science haters who believe only in religion to understand why it's OK for both to exist. They don't have to be exclusive. Vatican wasn't built by G_d, it was built by men with science to worship him and all the goodies he's put in the world for scientists to discover :D

OP is right. In academia the mere possibility of creation is not a possible outcome. It is a foregone conclusion that evolution is true and all they try is to prove that theory. They dont try to find the truth in a true unbiased way.

Because if they assume the creator, then they could stop halfway through one of the biggest breakthroughs in history that could end world hunger or save the entire race and just chalk it down to...Oh, it's because G_d did it.

It doesn't say you have to disavow G_d to do science, just that the stance science has to take in order to continue and provide any result is that a creator did not just *poof* everything into existence. Even then, they assume the big bang happened. They, however, never say G_d didn't shape anything, they just offer the idea of how it may function in this realm. If you believe in a creator, then you have to believe that he made science as well, otherwise you are saying you know better than he what is good and bad that he made!

I believe in G_d, I also understand and believe in science. Next time you use your laptop, drive your car, eat any food other than what you've grown (even then you probably cooked on a stove or used a knife), realize that you are using science from the past. Your stove and house where not just *poofed* into existence.

Science is a tool. If we use it responsibly and spiritually, then it's positive. If we use it negatively, then it hurts us back. It has no will of its own.

BREAKING: You should learn to understand an article or position posited before assuming you know the definition and what it's intent is.

OP is right. In academia the mere possibility of creation is not a possible outcome. It is a foregone conclusion that evolution is true and all they try is to prove that theory. They dont try to find the truth in a true unbiased way.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19283877

If you have a better idea, then you should offer it to them. The theory makes sense, so we use it. If a better model that makes more sense comes along, then we'll use that. Now you have the chance to prove yourself among the true greats. Ask G_d how everything came into being under the cause and effect rulings of probability.

And the spainard who said pwnage... I'm not trying to pwn, i'm trying to help other understand. but thanks i guess. I wish OP would talk to me -____-'

"God" is just three letters, the ultimate copout. But whatever rocks your boat.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18922283

not a copout if you believe in him as a supplement to further yourself. divine inspiration = critical thinking = creative genius = the greek muses.

but yah, G_d doesn't fit very well into a triple integral... the area of any 3d shape does though!

Quoting: somebody 17526338

"Him"? how do you know?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18922283

sorry, i admit fault there... I'm used to the conventions I was raised with (as we all are). I should try to say it, but then the bible thumpers will jump on me again -___________-'I admit it could be a she, it could also be an it. IDK, i only desire to know.

"God" is just three letters, the ultimate copout. But whatever rocks your boat.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18922283

not a copout if you believe in him as a supplement to further yourself. divine inspiration = critical thinking = creative genius = the greek muses.

but yah, G_d doesn't fit very well into a triple integral... the area of any 3d shape does though!

Quoting: somebody 17526338

"Him"? how do you know?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18922283

sorry, i admit fault there... I'm used to the conventions I was raised with (as we all are). I should try to say it, but then the bible thumpers will jump on me again -___________-'I admit it could be a she, it could also be an it. IDK, i only desire to know.

Because if they assume the creator, then they could stop halfway through one of the biggest breakthroughs in history that could end world hunger or save the entire race and just chalk it down to...Oh, it's because G_d did it.

Quoting: somebody 17526338

Thank you for emphasizing my point. The academic WILL NOT accept intelligent design as an answer no matter how heavily the data points to such a thing.

At the same time, the academic is constantly suggesting that the limits of Science are endless.

Now what happens when an attitude collides with the scientifically unexplainable? In the absence of data, what will be made up in interpretation based on the admitted motive that "it must be a natural cause"

I'll tell you what happens: They imagine an idea like Evolution, and interpret every bit of data they can to support it, whilst discarding any data that points away from it, by their own admission.

It doesn't say you have to disavow G_d to do science, just that the stance science has to take in order to continue and provide any result is that a creator did not just *poof* everything into existence. Even then, they assume the big bang happened. They, however, never say G_d didn't shape anything, they just offer the idea of how it may function in this realm. If you believe in a creator, then you have to believe that he made science as well, otherwise you are saying you know better than he what is good and bad that he made!

Quoting: somebody 17526338

By promoting Evolution alone, they are constantly and loudly stating that God did not design Humans. Humans came from ape ancestors, and ultimately from wet rocks.

That is most certainly stealing God's Glory and leading the non-skeptical down the Naturalism Religion.

And on top of that, Naturalist Academics consistently state the preexisting conditions for the "Big Bang" was some sort of unknown natural phenomena. They don't leave any room for God in their religion.

I believe in G_d, I also understand and believe in science. Next time you use your laptop, drive your car, eat any food other than what you've grown (even then you probably cooked on a stove or used a knife), realize that you are using science from the past. Your stove and house where not just *poofed* into existence.

Science is a tool. If we use it responsibly and spiritually, then it's positive. If we use it negatively, then it hurts us back. It has no will of its own.

BREAKING: You should learn to understand an article or position posited before assuming you know the definition and what it's intent is.

The rest of your post is a flimsy strawman. Never did I say I was against technology or pursuits of science, or that God was. And by the way, most of "your ilk" that major scientific discoveries rest on were believers in God.

What I'm against is automatically assuming a Naturalistic Conclusion no matter what the data says, especially when concerning a topic like ORIGINS that Science thus far has failed miserably to explain. It is inherently unscientific to assume science has all the answers.

Oh yea, not to mention Evolution is marred by a century of admitted bias, lies, fraud, and swept-under-the-rug errors.

God is the universe, the ultimate cosmic intelligence. We are one of the infinite sparks the compose God. We are within God, and God is within us.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18800589

Most people really think "god" is a human, an elderly male one at that.

Obviously some psychological issues involved but that's not my subject.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18922283

I think it's more a societal result of long term male oppression. We are generally stronger, both through will and physique. Woman are often shown as subtle deceivers.

The main thing i hate about our current reality is that we are all born into a system not of our own choosing, but into that of individuals who came before us. It's not that it's not right, nor is it wrong. They HAD to do something, else we'd still be in the dark ages. I just wish I'd had a voice in the shaping of it all...

Imagine your family tree. You sprang from fewer and fewer individuals as you move back along your line. It's because humans don't tend to have a 1:1 ratio of children to parents. Now imagine that every few generations one of the individuals on your tree had a different eye color due to chance. If they lived, they might pass that on to the children they have. Now imagine your family tree is 1000000 years old.

Quoting: somebody 17526338

Nobody denies Adaptation. Limited variations are observed everywhere, and it is insulting for the Evolutionist to constantly hide his imagined Macro-Evolution fantasies behind it. You observe limited, and have absolutely no evidence for unlimited. It's faith, not science.

The original post helps explain part of the mystery of how this junk psuedos-cience came into prominence.

Because if they assume the creator, then they could stop halfway through one of the biggest breakthroughs in history that could end world hunger or save the entire race and just chalk it down to...Oh, it's because G_d did it.

Quoting: somebody 17526338

Thank you for emphasizing my point. The academic WILL NOT accept intelligent design as an answer no matter how heavily the data points to such a thing.

At the same time, the academic is constantly suggesting that the limits of Science are endless.

Now what happens when an attitude collides with the scientifically unexplainable? In the absence of data, what will be made up in interpretation based on the admitted motive that "it must be a natural cause"

I'll tell you what happens: They imagine an idea like Evolution, and interpret every bit of data they can to support it, whilst discarding any data that points away from it, by their own admission.

It doesn't say you have to disavow G_d to do science, just that the stance science has to take in order to continue and provide any result is that a creator did not just *poof* everything into existence. Even then, they assume the big bang happened. They, however, never say G_d didn't shape anything, they just offer the idea of how it may function in this realm. If you believe in a creator, then you have to believe that he made science as well, otherwise you are saying you know better than he what is good and bad that he made!

Quoting: somebody 17526338

By promoting Evolution alone, they are constantly and loudly stating that God did not design Humans. Humans came from ape ancestors, and ultimately from wet rocks.

That is most certainly stealing God's Glory and leading the non-skeptical down the Naturalism Religion.

And on top of that, Naturalist Academics consistently state the preexisting conditions for the "Big Bang" was some sort of unknown natural phenomena. They don't leave any room for God in their religion.

I believe in G_d, I also understand and believe in science. Next time you use your laptop, drive your car, eat any food other than what you've grown (even then you probably cooked on a stove or used a knife), realize that you are using science from the past. Your stove and house where not just *poofed* into existence.

Science is a tool. If we use it responsibly and spiritually, then it's positive. If we use it negatively, then it hurts us back. It has no will of its own.

BREAKING: You should learn to understand an article or position posited before assuming you know the definition and what it's intent is.

The rest of your post is a flimsy strawman. Never did I say I was against technology or pursuits of science, or that God was. And by the way, most of "your ilk" that major scientific discoveries rest on were believers in God.

What I'm against is automatically assuming a Naturalistic Conclusion no matter what the data says, especially when concerning a topic like ORIGINS that Science thus far has failed miserably to explain. It is inherently unscientific to assume science has all the answers.

Oh yea, not to mention Evolution is marred by a century of admitted bias, lies, fraud, and swept-under-the-rug errors.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8597527

That's the whole point, though. If we don't rely on naturalistic ideas of everything, there would only be stagnation of the current scenario. I LOVE the fact, btw, that you said it is inherently unscientific to assume science has all the answers. That is correct. But what would you suggest we do otherwise? The bible says not to test your G_d.And as for the scientifically unexplainable... how else are we to conduct research other than to question? Assuming it's all natural may not be as far fetched as it appears, as with the Big Bang theory. The bible says G_d existed before creation, he's infinite in both directions. So it could be that he set up all the laws of probability and physics prior to the bang, and merely resides in a watchful state to see how we handle ourselves.

Also sorry for my assumptions....

Thanks for coming back, btw. What evidence would you suggest towards intelligent design?

I'm also going to stop posting for a hot minute to see what accrues here, sorry for semi-spamming. I just thought you where another DGN...

OP is right. In academia the mere possibility of creation is not a possible outcome. It is a foregone conclusion that evolution is true and all they try is to prove that theory. They dont try to find the truth in a true unbiased way.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19283877

If you have a better idea, then you should offer it to them. The theory makes sense, so we use it. If a better model that makes more sense comes along, then we'll use that.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17526338

Guess what? That is not science.

You arrive at a working scientific theory by TESTING it.

It doesn't matter if it "makes sense" to the entire world. That is still not the scientific method.

This is exactly why Evolution is a Religion. It takes the observed limited and projects that to the Unlimited "LIZARDS TURN INTO BIRDS!!!!" as a predetermined conclusion with zero room for alternatives. Henceforth all data MUST point to this conclusion or be discarded.

This is simple to see. Macro-Evolution is NOT science, it's a faith-based belief.

That's the whole point, though. If we don't rely on naturalistic ideas of everything, there would only be stagnation of the current scenario. I LOVE the fact, btw, that you said it is inherently unscientific to assume science has all the answers. That is correct. But what would you suggest we do otherwise? The bible says not to test your G_d.And as for the scientifically unexplainable... how else are we to conduct research other than to question?

Quoting: somebody 17526338

Whats so hard about admitting that according to current research the theory of evolution is not supportable. Surely you could do that and still keep researching.

Why does evolution in nature have to be strictly linked to accepted Evolutionary Theory? Obviously there is intelligence at work in conjunction with our millions of years of evolution. Orgone Biophysics is heavily suppressed because it is a pathway towards reconciling this issue.

That's the whole point, though. If we don't rely on naturalistic ideas of everything, there would only be stagnation of the current scenario. I LOVE the fact, btw, that you said it is inherently unscientific to assume science has all the answers. That is correct. But what would you suggest we do otherwise? The bible says not to test your G_d.And as for the scientifically unexplainable... how else are we to conduct research other than to question?

Quoting: somebody 17526338

Whats so hard about admitting that according to current research the theory of evolution is not supportable. Surely you could do that and still keep researching.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19283877

You could, but then the bodies of evidence that you may use to reference your work in the future may already be 'tainted' with the possibly false idea.And when would you judge yourself as having enough evidence to support a theory, if science went along with doing just the research without the model?

One of the main reasons I like GLP is that it has different ideas (specifically aliens :D, but this argument follows the same trend as the one for the divine...).

That's the whole point, though. If we don't rely on naturalistic ideas of everything, there would only be stagnation of the current scenario. I LOVE the fact, btw, that you said it is inherently unscientific to assume science has all the answers. That is correct. But what would you suggest we do otherwise?

Quoting: somebody 17526338

That's a great issue to discuss. How do we deal with the inherent limits of Science vs. Man's desire to explain everything scientifically?

But what's important right now, to me, is to come to terms with the fact that Academia has already crossed that line, and majorly jumped the gun in proclaiming a naturalistic faith to be a scientific empirical certainty, as they have done with Evolution, and to a major extant the Big Bang.

What evidence would you suggest towards intelligent design?

Quoting: somebody 17526338

That we either search for God, or desperately try and blot him out. We all know God is real...

Again.. think about all of this forming from some wet rocks.. it's silly isn't it? We're intentionally trying to look away from the Truth that is all around us. Just take a minute and really think about it.

That's the whole point, though. If we don't rely on naturalistic ideas of everything, there would only be stagnation of the current scenario. I LOVE the fact, btw, that you said it is inherently unscientific to assume science has all the answers. That is correct. But what would you suggest we do otherwise? The bible says not to test your G_d.And as for the scientifically unexplainable... how else are we to conduct research other than to question?

Quoting: somebody 17526338

Whats so hard about admitting that according to current research the theory of evolution is not supportable. Surely you could do that and still keep researching.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19283877

I think we know the main reason...

Think how many branches of Academia have emphatically supported Macro-Evolution for decades.

There is no hope for saving face at this point.

The current academic system would not be trusted again for generations.

They have no choice but to keep kicking the Evolution can down the road, regardless of how it is increasingly exposed as a pseudo-science.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Christopher Hitchens said it and its true.

A claim that God exists and controls everything in the universe is an extraordinary claim to be made, one which there is no evidence of whatsoever. You have no reason to believe in God, you could believe in any of the mythical Gods written about in ancient times and you will have the same amount of evidence of their existence as you do of the God in the bible.